Imaging biomarkers (IBs) play a critical role in the clinical management of breast cancer (BRCA) patients throughout the cancer continuum for screening, diagnosis and therapy assessment especially in the neoadjuvant setting. However, certain model-based IBs suffer from significant variability due to the complex workflows involved in their computation, whereas model-free IBs have not been properly studied regarding clinical outcome. In the present study, IBs from 35 BRCA patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) were extracted from dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging (DCE-MRI) data with two different approaches, a model-free approach based on pattern recognition (PR), and a model-based one using pharmacokinetic compartmental modeling. Our analysis found that both model-free and model-based biomarkers can predict pathological complete response (pCR) after the first cycle of NAC. Overall, 8 biomarkers predicted the treatment response after the first cycle of NAC, with statistical significance (p-value<0.05), and 3 at the baseline. The best pCR predictors at first follow-up, achieving high AUC and sensitivity and specificity more than 50%, were the hypoxic component with threshold2 (AUC 90.4%) from the PR method, and the median value of kep (AUC 73.4%) from the model-based approach. Moreover, the 80th percentile of ve achieved the highest pCR prediction at baseline with AUC 78.5%. The results suggest that model-free DCE-MRI IBs could be a more robust alternative to complex, model-based ones such as kep and favor the hypothesis that the PR image-derived hypoxic image component captures actual tumor hypoxia information able to predict BRCA NAC outcome.

Investigating the Role of Model-Based and Model-Free Imaging Biomarkers as Early Predictors of Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Therapy Outcome

Salvetti O;
2019

Abstract

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) play a critical role in the clinical management of breast cancer (BRCA) patients throughout the cancer continuum for screening, diagnosis and therapy assessment especially in the neoadjuvant setting. However, certain model-based IBs suffer from significant variability due to the complex workflows involved in their computation, whereas model-free IBs have not been properly studied regarding clinical outcome. In the present study, IBs from 35 BRCA patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) were extracted from dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging (DCE-MRI) data with two different approaches, a model-free approach based on pattern recognition (PR), and a model-based one using pharmacokinetic compartmental modeling. Our analysis found that both model-free and model-based biomarkers can predict pathological complete response (pCR) after the first cycle of NAC. Overall, 8 biomarkers predicted the treatment response after the first cycle of NAC, with statistical significance (p-value<0.05), and 3 at the baseline. The best pCR predictors at first follow-up, achieving high AUC and sensitivity and specificity more than 50%, were the hypoxic component with threshold2 (AUC 90.4%) from the PR method, and the median value of kep (AUC 73.4%) from the model-based approach. Moreover, the 80th percentile of ve achieved the highest pCR prediction at baseline with AUC 78.5%. The results suggest that model-free DCE-MRI IBs could be a more robust alternative to complex, model-based ones such as kep and favor the hypothesis that the PR image-derived hypoxic image component captures actual tumor hypoxia information able to predict BRCA NAC outcome.
2019
Istituto di Bioscienze e Biorisorse
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "Alessandro Faedo" - ISTI
Biological system modeling
Imaging
Biomarkers
Medical treatment
Tumors
Predictive models
Breast cancer
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/389511
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact